Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    February 23, 2011 7:30am-8:00am PST

7:30 am
transcripts was that he made that point during the transcripts and you had the opportunity to present your witness at the time and you chose not to. we will now move into consideration on whether to sustain or not sustain the closing charges. >> kiln we wanted to come to the commission for redress entity commission turned around and precludes my client from bringing her witnesses. this commission knows if it has read the papers that the officer had authorization from captain bruce to produce this video. the officer had authorization from the chief to produce this video. obviously, if you read the transcript, dino that the lieutenant wanted to talk to the chief related to whether or not she authorized -- to make this
7:31 am
video. you also know that he could carry the camera at in his car every day. he was authorized to -- members in the department. you would know that the -- testified on cross-examination. the officer had the ability to shoot officers of the department. the officer should not be disciplined. if you have read the declaration of captain bruce, who was the retiring capt., he stated that at the time that officer cohen began working at the station, i defined his duty as primarily working in a radio car but his duties included that he carried his video camera with him at all
7:32 am
times and to take what video he felt appropriate in the course of his duties as a police officer. while he was working at the station, his duties including the carrying of his video camera and the filming of other officers or other things which were of interest. the station had moral issues. i retired from the san francisco police department at the rank of captain. they had been working on the
7:33 am
project which i personally requested. these were done on duty. they had the implicitly authority to use props and his video. the officer used department supplies and accessories to film and direct his video clip as well as his personal equipment. you will see that he signed away requisition forms so that he could get a videos or anything he needed.
7:34 am
this was part of his job at the bayview station. the officer had the permission to film anything in the department. i have nothing further. i reserve.
7:35 am
>> we will give you a minute for rebuttal. >> this case is really about what the officer chose to do in each of these videos which in many cases is she created, directed to come up pyridine as an actor -- and directed, appeared in as an actor. the defense is trying to deflect you from thinking about the issues that are raised in the specifications. in particular, it is important to note that the the only evidence was the declaration from the captain done several years after the fact. he did not approve any of these videos. he had seen them and was very
7:36 am
upset by them. he would not have approved them. at the best, he had some inkling that the officer was filming something that might be comedic but certainly did not approve the content or behavior. that is consistent with the fact that the captain could not be in a position to authorize the violations that you saw, the rule mine violations, the un safe use of firearms that you saw in these videos. that would have been done on lawful order even if he had granted it. the issue is not about authorization. the captain did not authorize this. you can infer from some of the comments that he makes is that he had reason to come up with a different story two years later when he was doing a declaration after he retired from the department. i think in a case like this, it
7:37 am
might be tempting to attempt to distinguish some of the arguments that council makes on behalf of their client with the argument about the case. the testimony that we heard from the officers shows that she really thinks she did not do anything wrong. she believes that she is being persecuted. if you choose not to sustain any of these charges, you will be telling her that she is right. the things she chose to do on the video, the un safe use of for firearm, that these things were okay. -- the un safe use of her firearm, that these things were okay. it is very important that you send her and the other officers that this kind of conduct is unacceptable. the department is concerned that this videotape was to strip it to the public because it impairs the image and the ability to
7:38 am
perform well. all of this contract was problematic even if it never been videotaped and we would still be here today even if all of this material had not videotape. it might be tempting to think that what mr. mccoy had to say is somehow different. she has gone out for which to pick an attorney that -- did not provide.
7:39 am
but i think that you should spend some time thinking about the global effect that this case has. the attitude displayed by the litigants and whether this is consistent or inconsistent with what you want to see police officers doing. i guarantee you, you will see this behavior again if you don't sustain these charges. it is important that you sustain all of these charges and important that you go to the checklist that i gave you the suggested findings about which videos violated which -- it is very important to have that record. this is probably one of the most important cases the department has had and it is important that
7:40 am
the commission tells the public and the officers what we believe is acceptable conduct for officers. >> thank you. >> i will give you a minute for rebuttal. >> obviously, commissioners, the case should not be sustained based on what attorney the officer chose. i am on the panel, so i don't know what he is talking about. in terms of authorization, this is a paramilitary organization. if you've got authorization from your superior, you should carry out whatever instructions they wanted to give you. if you look at this exhibit, the officer had the same specifications, discredited in the department, and in his case it was not sustained.
7:41 am
he was not disciplined. in fact, i will read what the conclusions were. he was similarly situated. he participated in the video. he was a willing participant and this is what the sergeant found and concurred. the officers followed the direction of his immediate supervisor when he participated in this video. currently, there is no policy upon which the officer can make a decision or reference to regarding the member's participation any type of video film or allegation of misconduct. >> thank you. i move that we go into closed session to deliberate on whether to sustain or not sustain >> we are back in the open
7:42 am
session item number 10 for tonight because the agenda. -- tonight's agenda. >> we have been deliberating on the specifications of the matter, and we have voted on each of these specifications separately and we will give you our findings. videos identified in specification one, it is sustained by a vote of 5-0. as for specification two, it was sustained 5-0. as for specification three, it was sustained 5-0. as to specifications four and
7:43 am
, it was sustained. specification five was two votes in favore, , 43 opoposed. -- opposed. remove to discuss penalties. we will begin with the the burden of the department. you will have five minutes.
7:44 am
>> members of the commission, i will be brief since you have already seen why we believe this is a termination case. those are best summarized in the video, father's day presentation. which i will play very briefly. in-i have you a thing -- >> i have you a thing of dark. -- dark chocolate. >> i love it.
7:45 am
mm. juicy but sweet. >> this video summarizes the reason why not one but three consecutive chiefs of police have asked you to terminate officer hurley. the essential problem here as highlighted is that he engaged in behavior that should not have been paid for with taxpayer funds. there is no reason it should have been done on duty, in uniform, in a station. she lacks the judgment consistent with being a police officer in san francisco. or do have a consciousness of
7:46 am
issues of race and sex is such that she would be able to forge positive working relationships. and she showed a zero remorse. she does not believe she has done anything wrong and she will not behave differently in the future. these are the reasons why a three consecutive chiefs are convinced that she is not suitable to be a police officer. if there are any commissioners that have a concern about that, i would invite you to ask me a question, give me a comment, or any other guidance that might explain better why this is a termination case. in that case, i like to reserve my minutes for rebuttal.
7:47 am
>> officer hurley has already been punished for her participation in the making of the comedy video. we of the comedy video was made for her capt. that was retiring, and she only did it because she wanted to send him a farewell gift. it was about nothing else. the video was part of the 11 of seven that was not sustained in respect to any type of harassment or race. the officer has been at the department for over 14 years. she was transferred out of bayview. she was developing relationships with the community, they have
7:48 am
communications with her colleagues in did community service. she never had any complaints from the community whatsoever. when the issue was raised, she was wrongfully suspended. the court of appeals indicated she was suspended and they to pay from her. the city had to give her the payback period she has already been damaged because she has been out for five years. that is what her job was, after she was transferred from the station and. and also when she was suspended, her image in the public view by the mayor and the chief of police also damage to reputation. she had a good reputation as a
7:49 am
police officer. in fact, it will be done by the deputy chief who will be a video -- and who was in the video. that is past history. there were other supervisors in this video. was he disciplined? he was not. there is a pattern and practice , certainly when a capt. is retiring. there should be no discipline in the case because the harm has already been made.
7:50 am
they were not disciplined at all. if you look at what appointed to earlier, -- [unintelligible] no one has ever been disciplined prior to making the video. there is no policy that gave them of this hate you cannot participate in the making of a video.
7:51 am
no one was placed on notice. officer hurley was not placed on notice. >> can i ask a question? since we already have the papers. are there any prior sustained allegations by officer hurley? >> this is the first one that i am aware of. since council has suggested that you compare this case to others, using the letter codes you find an exhibit g. officer x you heard came very close to termination, and it was the impression of the department that the only reason he was not
7:52 am
terminated was because the officer expressed a great deal of remorse. if officer x got a suspension saying he had been terribly wrong and was very sorry, clearly, you have to terminate officer hurley. the other officers have very little to do with her case. her claim of reverse discrimination has been rejected. the videos that they describe were never approved. the other video was described as a entirely different where he took some time off and made a very cute, fun, not offensive
7:53 am
the video. the libyan entirely appropriate thing to do for retirement party. that is not what we have here. regardless of the issue, this video you just saw was a rule by in violation. all of those go to the fact that officer hurley has demonstrated to you that she just lacks the fundamental skills to be a police officer. it would be a terrible mistake to keep her on. >> your the chief of the department right now. are you on the appropriate pale to be in this case? >> the video stands for itself. there is nothing i can say. we request termination of this employee.
7:54 am
>> i move that would go into closed session to consider the appropriate penalty. >> for the record, the chief was talking to mr. aldon on our break. i have a photograph of him talking during the break and i think it is highly inappropriate. >> we voted to gut a closed session, we are in closed secretary: at 9:48, we are back in closed session. >> to suspend the of a search
7:55 am
for a total of 360 days suspension without pay effective immediately. -- to suspend the officer. at this point, i would like to invite my fellow commissioners who read a comment about this matter to do so. -- who have a comment about this matter. we're going to go to superior court. >> i think this is highly in excess to give her the penalty that was just announced. >> i will give you two minutes to respond to the. >> it has been the practice of the commission historically to have suspensions begin immediately upon the commission's decision. there have been a variety of cases that have been appealed to superior court after the
7:56 am
decision, but i am not aware of any of them wear a stay was offered to the officer. in this case, as you may know, the officer is not on active duty. she is on disability, and she intends not to return to the department, so the question is how much the taxpayer is going to continue to carry for her until her disability benefits goes through, so i would say there is no reason. >> ok. city attorney, two questions for you. the first is whether the commission as a whole needs to act upon the request for a state, and whether i can do so as the hearing officer tonight or whether commissioner hammer could act upon it -- act upon
7:57 am
the request for re -- a stay. >> and one other issue is that she is on disability. note it should be after her dp is approved. >> i appreciate your input. >> since the commission as a whole determined that the suspension would begin immediately, but it would take a vote from the commission as a whole to change that status, and whether it were to begin immediately or at a later date is within the discretion of the commission. >> i would move that we would impose the penalties effective immediately. any objection? hearing none, this suspension will begin effective immediately.
7:58 am
lt. falvey, i think we need to have a vote. excuse me. i think dr. marshall had a comment on the commission's actions. commissioner marshall: i will say this. the commission obviously to these matters very, very seriously. we deliberated for a while, and we went back and forth. what we should do here. let me say that in the end, your job was scared. -- scared. -- spared. this is the second one of these cases that i have sat through. this in a video case. -- and a video case. i just want to say that the damage that we think these cases ever done to both the
7:59 am
department and the image of the city of san francisco are not to be taken lightly, and we want to convey that to the department and to the citizens of the city and county of san francisco. we want to convey that to you. obviously, moving forward, your job is spared. and we hope that when you come back, you will conduct yourself. in light of this, we would like the other members of the department to do so. we wish you good luck. we hope this is not an onus on you at all. secretary -- commissioner: do we need anything else? do i have a motion for nondisclosure? any objection?


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on